The most painful part is that most of the taxes have nothing to do with "doing good". Agriculture subsidies, weapons, overproduction, deforestation, desertification, fueling an environmental catastrophe, ... that is what we pay for with every single taxed purchase.

This is a small part of tax spending. Most of it go to social insurance programs.

How to become vegan in 4.5 hours:
1.Watch Forks over Knives (Health)
2.Watch Cowspiracy (Environment)
3. Watch Earthlings (Ethics)
Congratulations, unless you are a complete idiot you are now a vegan.

I agree that no one should be forced to pay taxes. However, anyone who chooses not to should not be allowed to use the roads, hospitals or anything else that the government pays for.

You make a point here, (that is often used), but the problem I have with it is.. the government didn't pay for ANY of the services they provide with their own money. They pay for it with money they take from others.

Why can't the people they forcibly take money from decide how it is used?

The people they forcibly take money from elect who decides how it is used.

I did not consent to anyone taking money from me, and I also did not consent to have the "mob" rule decide who is the best candidate to decide how my stolen money is spent.

Donald Trump was elected president in my country. (I know you don't live here, but hear me out.)

If this was your country, would you be happy to sit back and say " Well the people elected the reality TV star Donald Trump, I'll just sit back and accept whatever edicts he proposes! The people who voted him in know best!"

Donald Trump was elected president in my country. (I know you don't live here, but hear me out.)

If this was your country, would you be happy to sit back and say " Well the people elected the reality TV star Donald Trump, I'll just sit back and accept whatever edicts he proposes! The people who voted him in know best!"

Bad example! Donald Trump was not elected by the people, but by the elites in the electoral college. If somebody voted for Hillary Clinton, they really voted for a group of electors that are pledged to vote for her, and if somebody voted for Donald Trump, they really voted for a group of electors who are pledged to vote for him. This system is in no way democratic. Firstly, because it gives people in smaller states more voting power. And secondly, those electors are not even obliged to vote for the candidates their voters voted for them to vote for. In the 2016 election, electors pledged their votes to Colin Powell, Bernie Sanders, Faith Spotted Eagle, John Kasich and Ron Paul! And as if that was not bad enough, in 2004, one elector must have been really stupid because instead of voting for Democrat John Kerry, they voted for his running mate John Edwards! And they didn't even spell his name right! They spelled it "John Ewards"!!!

If the United States was truly Democratic, Trump would not be President. Hillary won the Popular Vote, and she rigged the Democratic primaries against Bernie Sanders anyway. So if the USA was truly Democratic, Bernie would be President.

If the USA was truly Democratic, there would be a system such as Proportional Representation, where votes translate into seats in an elected parliament in a people-oriented system in which the government is obliged to represent the people.

Having a Democratic system where the people all vote to elect the candidates that represent them is the best way to go because it will inevitably lead to a socialist society where the workers will own the means of production, and it is truly the best mechanism by which to go about doing this. It is why I am a member of the Fabian Society, because we need socialism by parliamentary democracy and this is the way to go.

Bad example! Donald Trump was not elected by the people, but by the elites in the electoral college.

We can debate the electoral college on another thread, but I will say the purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that just because one area had a large amount of people (remember the mob rule thing I'm against? ) it should not have more say than a larger, yet less populous area.

The main point I am trying to make is the "will of the people" (such as in socialism or communism) is not necessarily MORAL!

If Hillary had been elected, I could point out many, many immoral positions and actions she was in favor of/committed. The "elites" you speak of exist on both sides of American and European "democratic" societies. Yet both sides claim "to be for the people!" (but only the people who we think will vote for us, keeping us in Power and money!)

Taxation is theft, because the individuals being taxed do not consent. To force someone to do something they do not consent to is immoral. The major corporations and billionaires who take advantage of this system only exist because they play the game that keeps the elites in power, and tricks the layman into believing that its the other side that is causing all of their woes.

I can't stand communism/socialism/whateverism, but on a serious note I respect people who put forth the ideals you (Zzzzzzzzzz) claim to believe in. If you really want the individual to control their own lives, stop siding with a group that tells you what to believe and side with other individuals.

There is no argument I have heard yet that can convince me that forcing someone to give you what they have earned themselves is moral.

Bad example! Donald Trump was not elected by the people, but by the elites in the electoral college.

We can debate the electoral college on another thread, but I will say the purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that just because one area had a large amount of people (remember the mob rule thing I'm against? ) it should not have more say than a larger, yet less populous area.

The main point I am trying to make is the "will of the people" (such as in socialism or communism) is not necessarily MORAL!

The "mob rule" thing you are against has actually led to a reduction in taxation in many societies, such as the DPRK where taxation has been abolished and Allende's Chile where it was reduced.

If Hillary had been elected, I could point out many, many immoral positions and actions she was in favor of/committed. The "elites" you speak of exist on both sides of American and European "democratic" societies. Yet both sides claim "to be for the people!" (but only the people who we think will vote for us, keeping us in Power and money!)

I never said Hillary should have been elected. In fact I said the opposite. If the USA was a true democracy, Bernie would be President because Hillary Clinton rigged the Democratic nomination against him and he should have won it and then when he had the Democratic nomination he would beat Trump and win.

Taxation is theft, because the individuals being taxed do not consent. To force someone to do something they do not consent to is immoral. The major corporations and billionaires who take advantage of this system only exist because they play the game that keeps the elites in power, and tricks the layman into believing that its the other side that is causing all of their woes.

"Well, you do consent to it. You can leave your country where the taxation rates are high at any time." is what I could say to that.

That argument I just put forward is shit? Of course it is!

But so is the idea that workers can "consent" to being exploited under capitalists who own the means of production, as if they have a choice between remaining in their work where they are being exploited, working somewhere else where they will be exploited, or starving and dying on the streets!

Also, I reject the idea that it is always immoral to force someone to do something that they don't consent to. For instance, is it immoral to force rapists, murderers and paedophiles to go to prison if they don't want to?

Bad example! Donald Trump was not elected by the people, but by the elites in the electoral college.

We can debate the electoral college on another thread, but I will say the purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that just because one area had a large amount of people (remember the mob rule thing I'm against? ) it should not have more say than a larger, yet less populous area.

The main point I am trying to make is the "will of the people" (such as in socialism or communism) is not necessarily MORAL!

The "mob rule" thing you are against has actually led to a reduction in taxation in many societies, such as the DPRK where taxation has been abolished and Allende's Chile where it was reduced.

If Hillary had been elected, I could point out many, many immoral positions and actions she was in favor of/committed. The "elites" you speak of exist on both sides of American and European "democratic" societies. Yet both sides claim "to be for the people!" (but only the people who we think will vote for us, keeping us in Power and money!)

I never said Hillary should have been elected. In fact I said the opposite. If the USA was a true democracy, Bernie would be President because Hillary Clinton rigged the Democratic nomination against him and he should have won it and then when he had the Democratic nomination he would beat Trump and win.

Taxation is theft, because the individuals being taxed do not consent. To force someone to do something they do not consent to is immoral.

"Well, you do consent to it. You can leave your country where the taxation rates are high at any time." is what I could say to that.

That argument I just put forward is shit? Of course it is!

But so is the idea that workers can "consent" to being exploited under capitalists who own the means of production, as if they have a choice between remaining in their work where they are being exploited, working somewhere else where they will be exploited, or starving and dying on the streets!

the purpose of the electoral college was to ensure that just because one area had a large amount of people (remember the mob rule thing I'm against? ) it should not have more say than a larger, yet less populous area.

And should still a smaller state now is allowed to have power over a bigger state and it is instead a minority rule where the lesser population enforces their rule on the greater population.

If you could even call it that, as it is in the hands of a few elite electors who should not even be in the position they are in as many of them do not know what they are talking about. It doesn't even give power to the smaller states yet alone the bigger states! All the power goes to the electors aka: the bastards

The major corporations and billionaires who take advantage of this system only exist because they play the game that keeps the elites in power, and tricks the layman into believing that its the other side that is causing all of their woes.

The corporations are glad that socialist know that they cause their woes? This is what you are saying if you are saying that they are trying to convince people that it is either capitalism or socialism that is behind all their problems. Capitalism is the private ownership of the means of production and these people are capitalists. Why would they want people to know that capitalism causes the problems when they are the capitalists and they exploit people for their labour and that is why there is problems?

The "mob rule" thing you are against has actually led to a reduction in taxation in many societies, such as the DPRK where taxation has been abolished and Allende's Chile where it was reduced.

Taxation has been abolished in DPRK, but there is no way you can legitimately claim the citizens there are free. Mob rule works sometimes, but many other times it leads to things like legalized slavery and state sponsored "work camps".

I never said Hillary should have been elected. In fact I said the opposite. If the USA was a true democracy, Bernie would be President because Hillary Clinton rigged the Democratic nomination against him and he should have won it and then when he had the Democratic nomination he would beat Trump and win.

I liked Bernie, and would have voted for him over the Donald, but I still don't think he is a "good" candidate, and I like even less what he represents overall. (I like the "idea" of it, but it's not realistic and it won't work.) He was just the (IMO) most polished turd among the group.

Taxation is theft, because the individuals being taxed do not consent. To force someone to do something they do not consent to is immoral. The major corporations and billionaires who take advantage of this system only exist because they play the game that keeps the elites in power, and tricks the layman into believing that its the other side that is causing all of their woes.

"Well, you do consent to it. You can leave your country where the taxation rates are high at any time." is what I could say to that.

That argument I just put forward is shit? Of course it is!

But so is the idea that workers can "consent" to being exploited under capitalists who own the means of production, as if they have a choice between remaining in their work where they are being exploited, working somewhere else where they will be exploited, or starving and dying on the streets!

I actually agree with you that capitalism as it stands in America is deeply flawed, but I counter that it allows the largest companies to continually take advantage of their workers because of the "socialist" safety nets in place. Wal-mart wouldn't be able to pay their workers shit pay if they (the workers) weren't eligible for food-stamps and public assistance. And on top of paying their workers shit, they get a tax break for employing anyone who is on government assistance. Please read the last sentence again. THEY GET A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO PAY PEOPLE LESS THAT IT TAKES TO LIVE ON. So is Wal-mart the bad guy (yes), or are the socialized policies of the government the bad guy? (also yes.)

Also, I reject the idea that it is always immoral to force someone to do something that they don't consent to. For instance, is it immoral to force rapists, murderers and paedophiles to go to prison if they don't want to?

This is actually quite simple. Libertarians often refer to the NAP. (Non-Aggression Principle) You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it does not violate your fellow human's (or their properties) rights.

Once you violate the NAP (IOW, you harm someone or their property), you are subject to punishment, up-to death. If you murder someone, it is perfectly acceptable for their family to murder you. If you steal someones car, they can shoot you, or if they are feeling generous, imprison you and take your possessions equal to the value of what you have stolen.

It is moral to kill a murderer, because they were the first person to choose to harm another. In the words of a rap-artist from the 90's, "don't start no shit, there won't be no shit."

The "mob rule" thing you are against has actually led to a reduction in taxation in many societies, such as the DPRK where taxation has been abolished and Allende's Chile where it was reduced.

Taxation has been abolished in DPRK, but there is no way you can legitimately claim the citizens there are free. Mob rule works sometimes, but many other times it leads to things like legalized slavery and state sponsored "work camps".

According to the narrative you are talking about (the one spread by the CIA-funded Fake News Media) the DPRK is in no way a mob rule because it is a dictatorship led by Kim Jong-un who eats babies for breakfast (WITHOUT MILK!!!11111)

I never said Hillary should have been elected. In fact I said the opposite. If the USA was a true democracy, Bernie would be President because Hillary Clinton rigged the Democratic nomination against him and he should have won it and then when he had the Democratic nomination he would beat Trump and win.

I liked Bernie, and would have voted for him over the Donald, but I still don't think he is a "good" candidate, and I like even less what he represents overall. (I like the "idea" of it, but it's not realistic and it won't work.) He was just the (IMO) most polished turd among the group.

He was not even a turd though. He was a wonderful human being and if he had won, the United States would prosper under his benevolent regime.

Taxation is theft, because the individuals being taxed do not consent. To force someone to do something they do not consent to is immoral. The major corporations and billionaires who take advantage of this system only exist because they play the game that keeps the elites in power, and tricks the layman into believing that its the other side that is causing all of their woes.

"Well, you do consent to it. You can leave your country where the taxation rates are high at any time." is what I could say to that.

That argument I just put forward is shit? Of course it is!

But so is the idea that workers can "consent" to being exploited under capitalists who own the means of production, as if they have a choice between remaining in their work where they are being exploited, working somewhere else where they will be exploited, or starving and dying on the streets!

I actually agree with you that capitalism as it stands in America is deeply flawed, but I counter that it allows the largest companies to continually take advantage of their workers because of the "socialist" safety nets in place. Wal-mart wouldn't be able to pay their workers shit pay if they (the workers) weren't eligible for food-stamps and public assistance. And on top of paying their workers shit, they get a tax break for employing anyone who is on government assistance. Please read the last sentence again. THEY GET A FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO PAY PEOPLE LESS THAT IT TAKES TO LIVE ON. So is Wal-mart the bad guy (yes), or are the socialized policies of the government the bad guy? (also yes.)

Welfare Capitalism is in no way socialist. It is actually anti-socialist, and this is why there was a welfare state in Bismarck's Germany, because they wanted to bring down support for socialist movements with a "carrot" approach, as well as a "stick" approach.

Also, I reject the idea that it is always immoral to force someone to do something that they don't consent to. For instance, is it immoral to force rapists, murderers and paedophiles to go to prison if they don't want to?

This is actually quite simple. Libertarians often refer to the NAP. (Non-Aggression Principle) You are free to do whatever you want, as long as it does not violate your fellow human's (or their properties) rights.

Once you violate the NAP (IOW, you harm someone or their property), you are subject to punishment, up-to death. If you murder someone, it is perfectly acceptable for their family to murder you. If you steal someones car, they can shoot you, or if they are feeling generous, imprison you and take your possessions equal to the value of what you have stolen.

It is moral to kill a murderer, because they were the first person to choose to harm another. In the words of a rap-artist from the 90's, "don't start no shit, there won't be no shit."

[/quote]

In that case, Libertarians ought to be inherently anti-capitalist, as it has violated other humans' rights throughout history and is doing so today. Especially their property rights as the money that rightfully belongs to the worker is being taken by the capitalist parasite.

I am also not sure how stealing a car ought to incur the death penalty. It seems very extreme to me. Would there also be a death penalty for stepping on somebody else's front law (their property)?